This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religion in Egypt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Starting a discussion here to head off some of the edit warring going on. As it stands, I think I'm actually inclined to agree with Amgaw, if not their tone or specific line of argumentation. While Arab Barometer is a generally reliable source, the citation here is a link to a download page for their most recent survey of the Middle East. However, rather than reporting interpretable results, what we have here is a largely unformatted spreadsheet which I honestly do not trust us as Wikipedia editors to be able to interpret directly, and I believe that attempts to do so constitute original research. Pinging other involved editors Sro23 and FrankCesco26. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Can a administrator please look at the source it doesn’t say 10 million Egyptians are atheist/agnostic while the Kent university and the Arab barometer study don’t say non religious is the same as being atheist/agnostic and the word irreligious is not even used this is POV pushing. 213.107.51.175 ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Rosguill: I have no qualms with the edits you made, I'll only propose a stylistic change for better readability, and very minor additions, and I won't effect any edit before there is agreement here on the talk page. The stylistic change is, I think the second paragraph should remain the first, since it has the characteristics of an opening paragraph, in that it gives a good introductory description before dropping the numbers on the reader. The fist addition is, I think since the university of Kent study is putting the number at 11% it should be mentioned with a remark that it is quoting the Arab Barometer. The university of Kent study is actually one of the most useful sources I have come across. This addition should go directly after the Arab Barometer survey. Since the US report is the only one left with concrete numbers instead of percentages, I think it should lead the (now) second paragraph, followed by the Arab Barometer survey, followed by the statement from the university of Kent study which quotes the Arab Barometer survey. The second addition is, after "Egyptian media has reported... since 2011" I think the following should be added: "however, atheism or scepticism is not a recent phenomenon in Egypt"; because there is an emphasis put on the 2011 revolution, which may give the wrong impression that it is solely responsible; this addition is taken from the university of Kent study, Chapter 1, which goes on to list relevant Egyptian intellectuals and writers in the 20th century, some of them even openly professed atheism, such as
Ismail Adham; I'm wondering if mention of this particular Egyptian writer should be made, perhaps on the page "Irreligion in Egypt". The third addition (or rather a rephrasing), while I have no problem at all with the statement "While exact numbers of irreligious Egyptians... especially on the internet" as it is right now, I think we should stick more closely to the source and rephrase it to "Despite the lack of clarity with regard to absolute numbers, there is a noticeable increase in young Egyptians coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith, especially on the internet", as in the source; I also think we should retain "and involves both Egyptian men and women" after "which is visible across both Islam and Christianity"; the state of Egyptian women who have left religion requires a section of its own, and it is discussed in the study, but a passing mention of their involvement here seems proper.
So, the additions are only in the (now) second paragraph, and after these edits, which are just minor additions and stylistic changes, the whole subsection should read like this, with the additions highlighted:
First paragraph (no changes):
"There are Egyptians who identify themselves as ... in four of his books."
Second paragraph, with the additions highlighted:
"The 2017 US report on international religious freedom, concerning Egypt, states that there are between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.
[1] Absent official figures, sources consistently report that the number is increasing steadily.
[1] According to a survey by
Arab Barometer, around 10% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious.
[2] In the same survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious.
[3] A study at the
university of Kent quoted the Arab Barometer survey but stated their number as approximately 11% in 2013.
[4] Egyptian media has reported a major increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists since 2011;
[4] however, atheism or scepticism is not a recent phenomenon in Egypt.
[4] Despite the lack of clarity with regard to absolute numbers, there is a noticeable increase in young Egyptians coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith, especially on the internet.
[4] Many Egyptian irreligious/atheist intellectuals encourage irreligious Egyptians and Egyptian atheists to speak up and come out of the closet, a trend which is visible across both Islam and Christianity, and involves both Egyptian men and women.
[5]"
Third paragraph (no changes):
"Discrimination against atheists in Egypt is mainly the ... whether it is Islam or Christianity."
Fourth paragraph (no changes):
"In a 2011 Pew Research poll of ... and particularly after the ouster of Morsi in 2013."
If this sounds reasonable to you, then I'll wait for your reply before making the edit.
197.38.24.106 (
talk)
07:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
References
I was quite surprised by this article that none of the Ancient Egyptian religion has survived or had an influence on the current population and religions. I then had to find the articles Decline of ancient Egyptian religion and Islamization of Egypt to understand what happened. So I thought maybe this article could have a brief description of the Christianization and Islamization events and their respective wikilinks and timeframes? — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 11:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I will go by point by point as my last edit was undone I removed this as it was dishonest to put it here as according to wave V or wave 5 of the Arabbarometer survey only 0.1% of egyptians said they were atheist while 9.6% said they were christian and 90.4% said they were muslim here is way to access the survey go to wave V or 5 select egypt then type religion https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ LionAjk ( talk) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay but I think the link should be removed from the section it is in as the section is a about atheism, irreligion and agonsticism. LionAjk ( talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
As stated on the Al-Azhar University Wikipedia page, it is a Sunni Islamic university. And since Shi'a Islam is very different from Sunni Islam, it is normal for Shi'a Muslims not to be eligible for it, as Shi'a Islamic laws dramatically differ from Sunni Islamic ones.
So a Shi'a Muslim attending Al-Azhar would pretty much be like a Hindu regularly attending prayers in a Christian Catholic church. You imagine that. nutzboi ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This is deliberate misinformation and bias by removing my edit when I have 2 recent reliable sources that back my edits information. That is wrong not right when there is proof to support my edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saynotobiasim ( talk • contribs)
Numbers vary widely. The 1996 census, the last for which public info on religion exists has 5.6% of the population as Christian (down from 8.3% in 1927). [1] However the census may be undercounting Christians. [1] The government Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey (2008) of around 16,500 women aged 15 to 49 showed about 5% of the respondents were Christian. [1] According to Al-Ahram newspaper, one of the main government owned national newspapers in Egypt, estimated the percentage between 10% - 15% (2017). [2] QScience Connect in 2013 using 2008 data estimated that 5.1% of Egyptians between the ages of 15 and 59 were Copts. [3] The Pew Foundation estimates 5.1% for Christians in 2010. [4] The CIA Fact Book estimates 10% (2012) [5] while the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs states in 1997, "Estimates of the size of Egypt's Christian population vary from the low government figures of 6 to 7 million to the 12 million reported by some Christian leaders. The actual numbers may be in the 9 to 9.5 million range, out of an Egyptian population of more than 60 million" which yields an estimate of about 10-20% then. [6]. Several sources give 10-20%. [7] [8] The British Foreign Office gives a figure of 9%. [9] The Christian Post in 2004 quotes the U.S. Copt Association as reporting 15% of the population as native Christian. [10]
References
Hello I have explained the reason of my edit and why as the there are sources or references that back up my information and edit. Which is clearly evident with recent returnable researchers and conformed and backed by google culture which states 30 million world wide and researcher and analyst stating 10 to 25%. The whole of the Middle East is 5% which equates to 20 plus million and most are from Egypt. That is enough proof and facts with recent sources as proof as these old sources can be wrong due method or inaccurate. However, I would understand your point of view if it was my own information without any references or sources to back up my edit but that is not the case with my information such as google culture backing my edit as a sources as well. Saynotobiasim ( talk) 01:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
You cannot remove source information your spurces are estimation in best so its better to leave 5% then change 10 or 15% to 25% instead of removing confirmed estimations. LionAjk ( talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
"In Egypt, Muslims and Christians share a common history, national identity, ethnicity, race, culture, and language." - Is this meant to be a joke? Up until 2014 it was legal to hunt the Coptic Christians. Only in 2014 was it replaced by Association Football as the national sport. 2A02:14F:1F2:7D52:0:0:59E0:D087 ( talk) 18:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Distorting the survey results is disingenuous the survey was about religiosity why are you including it here in this section where only 0.1% of those surveyed said they had no religion if you bothered to look at the wave v (2018) survey here https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ and type religion in the search bar and select the religion option it gives you the results out of 2,400 surveyed in egypt:
Muslim / 90.4% /2,169
Christian/ 9.6% /230
No religion/ 0.1% /2
Everyone here answered the survey so sayings its other or no results is a lie which you wrote
I still don't get your logic in placing religiosity with the irreligion section when over 99% of Egyptians identified with a religion according to the AB survey ? Also the university of kent study is based of the AV survey and they haven't said anything different.
The 2017 data from the religious report was outdated and was based on anecdotal evidence you have to justify in keeping it here its anecdotal evidence that even the 2020 updated version has removed from the 2020 report Shinakho ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
As to the university of Kent study, it is also RS, and it is also accurately represented in the article. The university of Kent study is titled "Understanding Unbelief in Egypt", and states in the "Preface" and "Introduction" that this is about unbelief in Egypt, and many atheists and agnostics were interviewed, and all the statements from it are in this context, and that it is quoting the percentage from the AB survey is stated clearly in the article. Nothing here is misrepresented in any way. The university of Kent study is actually a SECONDARY source, see PST as well, with the AB analysis tool being the PRIMARY source that the university of Kent study is discussing, so actually the university of Kent study belongs here on Wikipedia, which is itself a tertiary source, more than the AB analysis tool does. Again what you are doing here is UCR, and you are poorly trying to interpret well-sourced content out of the article.
As to the 2017, no, you cannot simply say "outdated", it is from 2017, there is no sense whatsoever in which you can say "outdated" here, it is not a matter of "date" at all even, it is a separate report from the 2020 report (both should be included), it is a reliable source, and it did not hallucinate these anecdotal estimates, let a lone that there is no official estimates (we all know why, at least if one is honest), these estimates are important to include, the source is represented accurately in the article with the word anecdotal loud and clear. Your removal of it has no basis.
Please note that you have to establish consensus with other editors here first, if other editors wish to participate that is. There is a process that you have to follow, simply removing the content and references and edit-warring will not work here. Masrialltheway ( talk) 21:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
meansits not reliable figure", is OR/interpretation; it is not for you to interpret what the source
means. OR/interpretation is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, note that I'm not citing the guidelines for you to ignore them, I’m citing them for you to read them and abide by them, because otherwise we will not be able to discuss anything.
The problem here in regard to the AB data analysis tool, is that it is a primary source that is prone to OR/interpretation. This is not a technical article, we do not need to use a primary source when there are secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it for us, and putting it in the precise context of unbelief, like the university of Kent study and the other sources;[ 1][ 2][ 3] you are trying to remove the content of these secondary sources as well, which are more important here than a primary source is, as I'm saying above.
So, since the AB analysis tool is a primary source, I believe we can remove it altogether if there is an interpretation issue, since this is not a technical article, and since there are secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it of us, and contextualizing it. This has been raised by Rosguill in another section on this talk page. I also admit that, even though I have tried carefully to avoid interpretation with this AB analysis tool primary source, my edit is still not perfect, the best I could do is to indicate the sections that the different data are included in. Also, I did not say that anything is linked to the government! What are you on about? I’m remarking on why the separation into two sections is significant, with the relevant situation in Egypt, please understand what someone is saying before replying. Also, you can’t cherry-pick what to include from the AB data analysis tool raw data, you cannot tell us that the percentage of "not religious" shouldn’t be included, and then go ahead and include the demographic percentages of Muslims and Christians; either all the data is included and reconciled, or none of it is to be included at all, specially since this is a primary source. I’m arguing for the latter, since we have secondary sources reporting this primary source, interpreting it for us, and contextualizing it.
As to these secondary sources themselves, I addressed why you should not remove their content; their content is as follows: "A study at the University of Kent, citing a 2018 survey by Arab Barometer, stated that around 11% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious.[ 1][ 2][ 3", and "In the same Arab Barometer survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious.[ 3" You simply ignored what I'm saying, you just quoted me, and then repeated yourself with a typical attempt at OR/interpretation. Secondary sources are the priority, they reported on the primary source, interpreted it for us, and contextualized it, this is in line with Wikipedia as a tertiary source, as I said above. You removed their content without explanation, which I keep telling you and giving you the link to UCR, again please see the guidelines I’m citing to understand why you shouldn’t do this, specially when your reason for removal is purely OR/interpretation, which again is not allowed on Wikipedia, even when someone else added the content, because someone else will always be adding the content, the content does not add itself; unexplained removal of well-sourced content, which is directly verifiable from the sources cited for it, is what has to be thoroughly discussed and consensus has to be sought first once someone tells you that your removal is UCR; if you have read the guidelines I’m citing you would have learned this. And, given your comments above and your attempt at interpretation, you are in no position to say in the edit summary "that’s not how it works", it is obvious you don’t even have a good grasp on the basic guidelines, such as OR/interpretation, to be telling anyone how things work.
Regarding the 2017 report, again stop repeating yourself. And again, saying "anecdotal estimates means
its not reliable figure" is absolute OR/interpretation; it is not for you to interpret what the source means
. This is the statement you are removing: "The 2017 US report on international religious freedom in Egypt states that anecdotal estimates report between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.[
4", which is taken directly from the source, and so long as the source is RS and so long as what is stated in the source is represented accurately, which it is, you should not remove it; your OR/interpretation has no place here; attempting to interpret it out is unacceptable. Again, I have already addressed this and your other claims in my comment above (and, for instance, reports from as far back as 2006 are used elsewhere in this article), stop ignoring and repeating yourself please.
You reverted again and said that if I want to add, I should seek consensus on talk. Fair enough, my addition is: I re-added the 2017 report, and added the AB raw data on the "not religious" percentage, both are taken directly from the sources; you removed both, but you also covertly removed a large amount of other well-sourced content while reverting. You have not offered any valid argument for the removal of anything, only OR/interpretation, which is not allowed here. Now, as I said, you are also covertly removing a large amount of other well-sourced content, not just the 2017 report which I re-added and the AB raw data on the "not religious" percentage that I added; you are removing the content from the university of Kent study and the content from the secondary sources reporting on the AB survey, which are mentioned above. So, the same applies to you, if you want to remove anything you must discuss here and seek consensus first. If I have to argue and seek consensus for the inclusion of well-sourced content that is directly verifiable from the cited reliable source, then you absolutely have to thoroughly explain, discuss, and seek consensus for removing the content that you are removing without any valid explanations whatsoever, only attempts at OR/interpretation. I will proceed to restore the other content you removed until you seek consensus, while keeping my addition out as well until there is consensus. I hope other editors get involved, because it is clear that you are disregarding the guidelines, which as I said makes any discussion difficult. Also, again, if you want to interpret the AB data analysis tool raw data on the "not religious" percentages out of this section, then the AB data analysis tool raw data on the demographics percentages cannot be included in this section by themselves either, and I'm in favor of total removal of this primary AB data analysis tool source, as I'm explaining above, but I will leave this part alone until other editors chime in, because I want to avoid any edit-war with you, which you seem to be locked and ready for, here and on other article with the same nature of editing. Masrialltheway ( talk) 22:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
If other editors want to get involved: I initially wanted to include all the percentages from the AB data analysis tool, not just the demographics percentages that are currently added, but it seems that interpretation is unavoidable, so in my previous comment I’m arguing to remove this AB data analysis tool altogether, since, as I said, it is a
primary source, and we already have
secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it for us, and putting it in the precise context of unbelief, like the university of Kent study specially and the other sources as well, and since this article is not a technical article. And, I want to restore this statement from the 2017 report: "The 2017 US report on international religious freedom in Egypt states that anecdotal estimates report between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.[
4"
The reasons for everything are discussed in my previous comments.
Masrialltheway (
talk)
20:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The Christian population in Egypt is said to be 18-22% of the total population (114 million) meaning there’s around 20-25 million Christian in Egypt. Someone please edit this page to reflect on this increasing numbers. Thanks Youssefa82718 ( talk) 17:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religion in Egypt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Starting a discussion here to head off some of the edit warring going on. As it stands, I think I'm actually inclined to agree with Amgaw, if not their tone or specific line of argumentation. While Arab Barometer is a generally reliable source, the citation here is a link to a download page for their most recent survey of the Middle East. However, rather than reporting interpretable results, what we have here is a largely unformatted spreadsheet which I honestly do not trust us as Wikipedia editors to be able to interpret directly, and I believe that attempts to do so constitute original research. Pinging other involved editors Sro23 and FrankCesco26. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Can a administrator please look at the source it doesn’t say 10 million Egyptians are atheist/agnostic while the Kent university and the Arab barometer study don’t say non religious is the same as being atheist/agnostic and the word irreligious is not even used this is POV pushing. 213.107.51.175 ( talk) 21:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Rosguill: I have no qualms with the edits you made, I'll only propose a stylistic change for better readability, and very minor additions, and I won't effect any edit before there is agreement here on the talk page. The stylistic change is, I think the second paragraph should remain the first, since it has the characteristics of an opening paragraph, in that it gives a good introductory description before dropping the numbers on the reader. The fist addition is, I think since the university of Kent study is putting the number at 11% it should be mentioned with a remark that it is quoting the Arab Barometer. The university of Kent study is actually one of the most useful sources I have come across. This addition should go directly after the Arab Barometer survey. Since the US report is the only one left with concrete numbers instead of percentages, I think it should lead the (now) second paragraph, followed by the Arab Barometer survey, followed by the statement from the university of Kent study which quotes the Arab Barometer survey. The second addition is, after "Egyptian media has reported... since 2011" I think the following should be added: "however, atheism or scepticism is not a recent phenomenon in Egypt"; because there is an emphasis put on the 2011 revolution, which may give the wrong impression that it is solely responsible; this addition is taken from the university of Kent study, Chapter 1, which goes on to list relevant Egyptian intellectuals and writers in the 20th century, some of them even openly professed atheism, such as
Ismail Adham; I'm wondering if mention of this particular Egyptian writer should be made, perhaps on the page "Irreligion in Egypt". The third addition (or rather a rephrasing), while I have no problem at all with the statement "While exact numbers of irreligious Egyptians... especially on the internet" as it is right now, I think we should stick more closely to the source and rephrase it to "Despite the lack of clarity with regard to absolute numbers, there is a noticeable increase in young Egyptians coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith, especially on the internet", as in the source; I also think we should retain "and involves both Egyptian men and women" after "which is visible across both Islam and Christianity"; the state of Egyptian women who have left religion requires a section of its own, and it is discussed in the study, but a passing mention of their involvement here seems proper.
So, the additions are only in the (now) second paragraph, and after these edits, which are just minor additions and stylistic changes, the whole subsection should read like this, with the additions highlighted:
First paragraph (no changes):
"There are Egyptians who identify themselves as ... in four of his books."
Second paragraph, with the additions highlighted:
"The 2017 US report on international religious freedom, concerning Egypt, states that there are between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.
[1] Absent official figures, sources consistently report that the number is increasing steadily.
[1] According to a survey by
Arab Barometer, around 10% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious.
[2] In the same survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious.
[3] A study at the
university of Kent quoted the Arab Barometer survey but stated their number as approximately 11% in 2013.
[4] Egyptian media has reported a major increase in the amount of nonbelievers and atheists since 2011;
[4] however, atheism or scepticism is not a recent phenomenon in Egypt.
[4] Despite the lack of clarity with regard to absolute numbers, there is a noticeable increase in young Egyptians coming out for nonbelieving and publicly testifying they have left the faith, especially on the internet.
[4] Many Egyptian irreligious/atheist intellectuals encourage irreligious Egyptians and Egyptian atheists to speak up and come out of the closet, a trend which is visible across both Islam and Christianity, and involves both Egyptian men and women.
[5]"
Third paragraph (no changes):
"Discrimination against atheists in Egypt is mainly the ... whether it is Islam or Christianity."
Fourth paragraph (no changes):
"In a 2011 Pew Research poll of ... and particularly after the ouster of Morsi in 2013."
If this sounds reasonable to you, then I'll wait for your reply before making the edit.
197.38.24.106 (
talk)
07:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
References
I was quite surprised by this article that none of the Ancient Egyptian religion has survived or had an influence on the current population and religions. I then had to find the articles Decline of ancient Egyptian religion and Islamization of Egypt to understand what happened. So I thought maybe this article could have a brief description of the Christianization and Islamization events and their respective wikilinks and timeframes? — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 11:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I will go by point by point as my last edit was undone I removed this as it was dishonest to put it here as according to wave V or wave 5 of the Arabbarometer survey only 0.1% of egyptians said they were atheist while 9.6% said they were christian and 90.4% said they were muslim here is way to access the survey go to wave V or 5 select egypt then type religion https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ LionAjk ( talk) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay but I think the link should be removed from the section it is in as the section is a about atheism, irreligion and agonsticism. LionAjk ( talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
As stated on the Al-Azhar University Wikipedia page, it is a Sunni Islamic university. And since Shi'a Islam is very different from Sunni Islam, it is normal for Shi'a Muslims not to be eligible for it, as Shi'a Islamic laws dramatically differ from Sunni Islamic ones.
So a Shi'a Muslim attending Al-Azhar would pretty much be like a Hindu regularly attending prayers in a Christian Catholic church. You imagine that. nutzboi ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This is deliberate misinformation and bias by removing my edit when I have 2 recent reliable sources that back my edits information. That is wrong not right when there is proof to support my edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saynotobiasim ( talk • contribs)
Numbers vary widely. The 1996 census, the last for which public info on religion exists has 5.6% of the population as Christian (down from 8.3% in 1927). [1] However the census may be undercounting Christians. [1] The government Egyptian Demographic and Health Survey (2008) of around 16,500 women aged 15 to 49 showed about 5% of the respondents were Christian. [1] According to Al-Ahram newspaper, one of the main government owned national newspapers in Egypt, estimated the percentage between 10% - 15% (2017). [2] QScience Connect in 2013 using 2008 data estimated that 5.1% of Egyptians between the ages of 15 and 59 were Copts. [3] The Pew Foundation estimates 5.1% for Christians in 2010. [4] The CIA Fact Book estimates 10% (2012) [5] while the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs states in 1997, "Estimates of the size of Egypt's Christian population vary from the low government figures of 6 to 7 million to the 12 million reported by some Christian leaders. The actual numbers may be in the 9 to 9.5 million range, out of an Egyptian population of more than 60 million" which yields an estimate of about 10-20% then. [6]. Several sources give 10-20%. [7] [8] The British Foreign Office gives a figure of 9%. [9] The Christian Post in 2004 quotes the U.S. Copt Association as reporting 15% of the population as native Christian. [10]
References
Hello I have explained the reason of my edit and why as the there are sources or references that back up my information and edit. Which is clearly evident with recent returnable researchers and conformed and backed by google culture which states 30 million world wide and researcher and analyst stating 10 to 25%. The whole of the Middle East is 5% which equates to 20 plus million and most are from Egypt. That is enough proof and facts with recent sources as proof as these old sources can be wrong due method or inaccurate. However, I would understand your point of view if it was my own information without any references or sources to back up my edit but that is not the case with my information such as google culture backing my edit as a sources as well. Saynotobiasim ( talk) 01:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
You cannot remove source information your spurces are estimation in best so its better to leave 5% then change 10 or 15% to 25% instead of removing confirmed estimations. LionAjk ( talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
"In Egypt, Muslims and Christians share a common history, national identity, ethnicity, race, culture, and language." - Is this meant to be a joke? Up until 2014 it was legal to hunt the Coptic Christians. Only in 2014 was it replaced by Association Football as the national sport. 2A02:14F:1F2:7D52:0:0:59E0:D087 ( talk) 18:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Distorting the survey results is disingenuous the survey was about religiosity why are you including it here in this section where only 0.1% of those surveyed said they had no religion if you bothered to look at the wave v (2018) survey here https://www.arabbarometer.org/survey-data/data-analysis-tool/ and type religion in the search bar and select the religion option it gives you the results out of 2,400 surveyed in egypt:
Muslim / 90.4% /2,169
Christian/ 9.6% /230
No religion/ 0.1% /2
Everyone here answered the survey so sayings its other or no results is a lie which you wrote
I still don't get your logic in placing religiosity with the irreligion section when over 99% of Egyptians identified with a religion according to the AB survey ? Also the university of kent study is based of the AV survey and they haven't said anything different.
The 2017 data from the religious report was outdated and was based on anecdotal evidence you have to justify in keeping it here its anecdotal evidence that even the 2020 updated version has removed from the 2020 report Shinakho ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
As to the university of Kent study, it is also RS, and it is also accurately represented in the article. The university of Kent study is titled "Understanding Unbelief in Egypt", and states in the "Preface" and "Introduction" that this is about unbelief in Egypt, and many atheists and agnostics were interviewed, and all the statements from it are in this context, and that it is quoting the percentage from the AB survey is stated clearly in the article. Nothing here is misrepresented in any way. The university of Kent study is actually a SECONDARY source, see PST as well, with the AB analysis tool being the PRIMARY source that the university of Kent study is discussing, so actually the university of Kent study belongs here on Wikipedia, which is itself a tertiary source, more than the AB analysis tool does. Again what you are doing here is UCR, and you are poorly trying to interpret well-sourced content out of the article.
As to the 2017, no, you cannot simply say "outdated", it is from 2017, there is no sense whatsoever in which you can say "outdated" here, it is not a matter of "date" at all even, it is a separate report from the 2020 report (both should be included), it is a reliable source, and it did not hallucinate these anecdotal estimates, let a lone that there is no official estimates (we all know why, at least if one is honest), these estimates are important to include, the source is represented accurately in the article with the word anecdotal loud and clear. Your removal of it has no basis.
Please note that you have to establish consensus with other editors here first, if other editors wish to participate that is. There is a process that you have to follow, simply removing the content and references and edit-warring will not work here. Masrialltheway ( talk) 21:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
meansits not reliable figure", is OR/interpretation; it is not for you to interpret what the source
means. OR/interpretation is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, note that I'm not citing the guidelines for you to ignore them, I’m citing them for you to read them and abide by them, because otherwise we will not be able to discuss anything.
The problem here in regard to the AB data analysis tool, is that it is a primary source that is prone to OR/interpretation. This is not a technical article, we do not need to use a primary source when there are secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it for us, and putting it in the precise context of unbelief, like the university of Kent study and the other sources;[ 1][ 2][ 3] you are trying to remove the content of these secondary sources as well, which are more important here than a primary source is, as I'm saying above.
So, since the AB analysis tool is a primary source, I believe we can remove it altogether if there is an interpretation issue, since this is not a technical article, and since there are secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it of us, and contextualizing it. This has been raised by Rosguill in another section on this talk page. I also admit that, even though I have tried carefully to avoid interpretation with this AB analysis tool primary source, my edit is still not perfect, the best I could do is to indicate the sections that the different data are included in. Also, I did not say that anything is linked to the government! What are you on about? I’m remarking on why the separation into two sections is significant, with the relevant situation in Egypt, please understand what someone is saying before replying. Also, you can’t cherry-pick what to include from the AB data analysis tool raw data, you cannot tell us that the percentage of "not religious" shouldn’t be included, and then go ahead and include the demographic percentages of Muslims and Christians; either all the data is included and reconciled, or none of it is to be included at all, specially since this is a primary source. I’m arguing for the latter, since we have secondary sources reporting this primary source, interpreting it for us, and contextualizing it.
As to these secondary sources themselves, I addressed why you should not remove their content; their content is as follows: "A study at the University of Kent, citing a 2018 survey by Arab Barometer, stated that around 11% of Egyptians identified themselves as not religious.[ 1][ 2][ 3", and "In the same Arab Barometer survey, about 20% of young Egyptians described themselves as not religious.[ 3" You simply ignored what I'm saying, you just quoted me, and then repeated yourself with a typical attempt at OR/interpretation. Secondary sources are the priority, they reported on the primary source, interpreted it for us, and contextualized it, this is in line with Wikipedia as a tertiary source, as I said above. You removed their content without explanation, which I keep telling you and giving you the link to UCR, again please see the guidelines I’m citing to understand why you shouldn’t do this, specially when your reason for removal is purely OR/interpretation, which again is not allowed on Wikipedia, even when someone else added the content, because someone else will always be adding the content, the content does not add itself; unexplained removal of well-sourced content, which is directly verifiable from the sources cited for it, is what has to be thoroughly discussed and consensus has to be sought first once someone tells you that your removal is UCR; if you have read the guidelines I’m citing you would have learned this. And, given your comments above and your attempt at interpretation, you are in no position to say in the edit summary "that’s not how it works", it is obvious you don’t even have a good grasp on the basic guidelines, such as OR/interpretation, to be telling anyone how things work.
Regarding the 2017 report, again stop repeating yourself. And again, saying "anecdotal estimates means
its not reliable figure" is absolute OR/interpretation; it is not for you to interpret what the source means
. This is the statement you are removing: "The 2017 US report on international religious freedom in Egypt states that anecdotal estimates report between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.[
4", which is taken directly from the source, and so long as the source is RS and so long as what is stated in the source is represented accurately, which it is, you should not remove it; your OR/interpretation has no place here; attempting to interpret it out is unacceptable. Again, I have already addressed this and your other claims in my comment above (and, for instance, reports from as far back as 2006 are used elsewhere in this article), stop ignoring and repeating yourself please.
You reverted again and said that if I want to add, I should seek consensus on talk. Fair enough, my addition is: I re-added the 2017 report, and added the AB raw data on the "not religious" percentage, both are taken directly from the sources; you removed both, but you also covertly removed a large amount of other well-sourced content while reverting. You have not offered any valid argument for the removal of anything, only OR/interpretation, which is not allowed here. Now, as I said, you are also covertly removing a large amount of other well-sourced content, not just the 2017 report which I re-added and the AB raw data on the "not religious" percentage that I added; you are removing the content from the university of Kent study and the content from the secondary sources reporting on the AB survey, which are mentioned above. So, the same applies to you, if you want to remove anything you must discuss here and seek consensus first. If I have to argue and seek consensus for the inclusion of well-sourced content that is directly verifiable from the cited reliable source, then you absolutely have to thoroughly explain, discuss, and seek consensus for removing the content that you are removing without any valid explanations whatsoever, only attempts at OR/interpretation. I will proceed to restore the other content you removed until you seek consensus, while keeping my addition out as well until there is consensus. I hope other editors get involved, because it is clear that you are disregarding the guidelines, which as I said makes any discussion difficult. Also, again, if you want to interpret the AB data analysis tool raw data on the "not religious" percentages out of this section, then the AB data analysis tool raw data on the demographics percentages cannot be included in this section by themselves either, and I'm in favor of total removal of this primary AB data analysis tool source, as I'm explaining above, but I will leave this part alone until other editors chime in, because I want to avoid any edit-war with you, which you seem to be locked and ready for, here and on other article with the same nature of editing. Masrialltheway ( talk) 22:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
If other editors want to get involved: I initially wanted to include all the percentages from the AB data analysis tool, not just the demographics percentages that are currently added, but it seems that interpretation is unavoidable, so in my previous comment I’m arguing to remove this AB data analysis tool altogether, since, as I said, it is a
primary source, and we already have
secondary sources reporting it, interpreting it for us, and putting it in the precise context of unbelief, like the university of Kent study specially and the other sources as well, and since this article is not a technical article. And, I want to restore this statement from the 2017 report: "The 2017 US report on international religious freedom in Egypt states that anecdotal estimates report between 1 million and 10 million atheists in Egypt, of Egypt's estimated 97 million population at that time.[
4"
The reasons for everything are discussed in my previous comments.
Masrialltheway (
talk)
20:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The Christian population in Egypt is said to be 18-22% of the total population (114 million) meaning there’s around 20-25 million Christian in Egypt. Someone please edit this page to reflect on this increasing numbers. Thanks Youssefa82718 ( talk) 17:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)